Classical rhetoricians did not agree about every instance of qalb. The discussion highlights that an inversion can be intelligible when it rests on a subtle conceptual relation.
Two related objects may be presented from the opposite relational standpoint without the intended scene becoming unrecognizable. Where that reciprocal viewpoint carries a perceivable meaning, the inversion may be more than a mistake.
An arbitrary reversal, by contrast, may mislead the hearer and add no genuine expressive value. Unusual syntax is not automatically eloquent.
A sound analysis asks: What relation was normally expected? What has been reversed? What meaningful effect follows?